SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports
Steve Wozniak has spoken out against Apple's tax affairs, saying all companies ought to pay 50 per cent in taxes.
Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live he said: "I don't like the idea that Apple might be unfair--not paying taxes the way I do as a person.
"I do a lot of work, I do a lot of travel and I pay over 50 per cent of anything I make in taxes and I believe that's part of life and you should do it."
Asked if Apple should pay that amount, he replied: "Every company in the world should."
According to Woz, money was never a factor when he started the biz with Steve Jobs 40 years ago. He added: "Steve Jobs started Apple Computers for money, that was his big thing and that was extremely important and critical and good."
Europe is currently scrutinising Ireland's tax arrangements with Apple over an alleged sweetheart deal with the company. Some have speculated the probe could lead to Apple paying $8bn in back taxes, even though the case is against the Irish government.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @07:02PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Bot on Monday April 25 2016, @07:14PM
He states that companies should pay the same taxes he does. Makes sense especially for corporations that have the absolutely laughable personhood status. In fact, were I an US citizen in trouble, I'd sue for being discriminated: the USA looks at my offshore accounts and not theirs.
The only issue with wozthink I have is that he should put his engineering skill at work to ascertain how much tax is really used for the benefit of the citizens, entirely a different problem.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Demose on Monday April 25 2016, @07:30PM
I've been seriously considering getting a degree in law so that I could test out just this premise. It's nice to know that I'm not alone in my insanity. :)
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @07:33PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 25 2016, @08:48PM
Yeah, you would, wouldn't you? You "taxation is theft" guys crack me up. If you don't want your money being used for things like roads and not-feces-in-drinking-water, go somewhere where they don't do that. Try Somalia; I hear you can do what you want 'cause a pirate is free.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @09:01PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday April 25 2016, @09:33PM
Right, those roads that lead to your house just magically spring up from the ground sim-city style. Social services are only used by the poor 50% of the population that are just freeloaders, amirite?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @09:58PM
So right. Any self-respecting murican just works through any health problems, and they don't need roads as their magical self-hoisting bootstraps can also levitate.
The ultimate irony here is that anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire (everyone here basically) is paying more than their fair share of taxes. If anything, the "freedom from govt" people should be wildly pro corporate tax as it would lower the tax burden on individuals. For those who say it will hurt jobs, here's a clue: corporations are already doing everything they can to cut costs, pay employees less, outsource and automate the jobs. Making them pay their taxes might actually knock some sense into the single minded MBA types instead of having them try to get all they can from the corporate buffet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @01:16AM
Yeah, let's all end up like Venezuela who has vast oil reserves and somehow still managed to become a broke hellhole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @01:51AM
Or, it might have something to do with global oversupply of oil. But if your story fits your narrative, you can go on believing whatever you want.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 25 2016, @10:07PM
I've never understood how self-professed Christians can reconcile their faith with this Randian idiocy.
Back In The Day (TM) society was agricultural. Charity was in the form of not reaping the edges of your field or the corners of your grape vineyards. These days, in a fiat-money service sector, taxes are the equivalent, i.e., a portion of your produced wealth being given to the poor. This is not a hard concept. It's no more theft than "orphans and windows" gleaning in the corners of your wheat field, no matter how much you whine about it.
I can only conclude either you're not actually a Christian, or you hate yourself and want to go to Hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @10:29PM
1. It's not a tithe
2. It does not go to the poor
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @02:41AM
1. Tithing is to support the church, not exactly a great form of charity. Its more of an ongoing kickstarter...
2. Taxes do go to the poor in many ways, but you are somewhat correct in that a majority of taxes have no real impact on the less fortunate.
3. Apparently you don't even really understand what being Christian is supposed to be about and its more about the community experience for you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheLink on Tuesday April 26 2016, @04:04AM
It's not merely not reaping the edges and corners. It's not going over entire vineyard or fields a second time to pick up what was dropped the first round.
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-9.htm [biblehub.com]
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-10.htm [biblehub.com]
Whatever drops is to be left for the needy and strangers So if you look at the story of Ruth a widow (and King David's grandmother) at one point she was one of those gathering after the main harvesters.
http://biblehub.com/ruth/2-23.htm [biblehub.com]
BTW there's also the Year of Jubilee, where it's like a big reset. Every 50 years all the farmland (not houses in city/town) reverts back to the original owners, Israelite "slaves"/servants go free. So in _theory_ it would have been harder for a family to gain and maintain a monopoly over production over many generations ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25&version=ESV [biblegateway.com] ).
Anyway, to me the main thing about this corporate tax thing is the dishonesty. It's dishonest for a corporation to claim publicly and officially (via annual reports etc) in the USA that they made billions of profit and turn around and tell the US Tax Dept they didn't make any of it, it's all made by some company in Ireland. It's dishonest for a corporation to go "I've this billions of dollars, I want to use it as collateral for a loan", or "I want to buy a lot of expensive stuff with _my_ billions" and then tell the US tax dept, "those billions of dollars aren't mine".
Should I be able to declare officially I made $$$$$, use it to buy/borrow stuff and then say I don't have to pay taxes on the $$$$$ because I didn't actually make the $$$$$? Is allowing or even encouraging this sort of dishonesty good in the long run?
Yes, preventing this sort of thing could make Apple move more to Ireland, and declare their billions there. But if they did that then they won't benefit as much from various "nice stuff" in the USA, that they haven't been paying their fair share for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @04:15AM
I've never understood how self-professed Christians can reconcile their faith with this Randian idiocy.
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/16-49.htm [biblehub.com]
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.
Seems the main sin of Sodom wasn't sodomy despite what many Christians prefer to believe.
The whole Bible has way more verses talking about helping the poor and needy than punishing men who lie with other men as with a woman ( I don't actually see many verses explicitly against girl on girl action though ;) ).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @05:46AM
I don't actually see many verses explicitly against girl on girl action though
Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
>Sorry to spoil it for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @06:50AM
1) After all in nature there are plenty of animals doing girl on girl stuff. Go look it up. Even among primates (not the Catholic sort ;) ).
2) It doesn't say that you are forbidden to do that. After all there are many disgusting, vile and bad things you can do that aren't forbidden by law. Like eating your own boogers.
3) Notice there's no earthly punishment proscribed for it that's to be meted out by humans. Contrast with the guy-on-guy stuff where there's a severe punishment proscribed.
I know what I'm talking about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @07:31AM
I want to know about Sharia law. If a man has two, three or four wives is he allowed to command them to lez up for his benefit?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday April 26 2016, @09:25AM
Absurdly informative thread on the subject at some other forum http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=483147 [straightdope.com]
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday April 26 2016, @08:11AM
Actually, there could be a reason for you being forced from your property. The reason is that there is a finite amount of real property on planet Earth and it needs to be allocated somehow amongst a population which is still growing. (Of course the details on how this should be done are debatable.) Property taxes provide a disincentive to hoard a limited resource.
It would be great if every person had the opportunity to live on their own land and do as they pleased with it. Sadly, this is not the situation that humanity currently finds itself in.
(Score: 5, Informative) by khallow on Monday April 25 2016, @10:56PM
If you don't want your money being used for things like roads and not-feces-in-drinking-water, go somewhere where they don't do that.
What percent of federal spending goes to that again? Even if we took everything spent [key-bit.com] on transportation, energy, and environment, it's well under 5% of all federal spending. It's annoying when someone throws out a laundry list of all the good things government supposedly does for its people, and the list doesn't even break 10% of all spending.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 25 2016, @11:15PM
Oh, I'm with you there :) We definitely should not have spent dozens of times that much dropping flaming munitions on the wrong set of vaguely-frightening middle easterners, or bailing out the banks, or any of the other stupid shit the--hah--mostly Republicans got us into. I'm showing the absurdity of the hardline "ALL taxation is theft and what has government EVER done for me?!" position.
I think we agree more than it seems we do on here. My father describes me as "left-libertarian," which isn't quite accurate but isn't entirely unfair either.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @01:01AM
I just had a Right-federalist and a Left-federalist arguing with each other last night. They then both argued with me as an escapist (as in escaping the USA) because both of them are pro-Federal government, but both are also vehemently against the others social legislation (gay marriage, tranny bathrooms, social services, etc.)
I've been in this asylum long enough that it is time to get out.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Snotnose on Monday April 25 2016, @11:10PM
Yeah, you would, wouldn't you? You "taxation is theft" guys crack me up. If you don't want your money being used for things like roads and not-feces-in-drinking-water, go somewhere where they don't do that. Try Somalia; I hear you can do what you want 'cause a pirate is free.
I don't mind paying taxes for roads and clean drinking water. I do have a problem with paying taxes for the NSA spying on me, the F35 and F22 boondoggles, the whole idea that less than 50% of citizens pay any taxes at all. Not to mention the huge bureaucracy the federal government has become, with multiple agencies regulating the same things, all with 15 years out of date technology.
Way back when when WWW was new there was a website that said "balance the US budget", then gave you several options on taxes to raise and things to cut. I didn't even put a lot of thought into it, just minor things I thought were common sense, and I went from a deficit to a surplus.
IMHO, you can take 10 random people off the street who live within their means, give them a year, and they'll balance the federal budget. The downside? A lot of sacred cows will get slaughtered and a lot of congresscritters will probably lose their jobs. Oh, did I say downside? I meant upside.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @02:10AM
I think we all agree on that. The problem is that if the current gov structure has less money, which budget do you think they'll cut - the one helping us or the one lining their friends' pockets? The fuck the proles budgets will last as long as the current government exists, so let's first talk about how we get the traitors out of office, then once we have a truly representative and responsive government, we can talk about where to increase spending, where to decrease spending and whether to shift the tax burden.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @01:22PM
if that was all they used tax money for there would be a lot less people against taxes
they also use it for multi trillion dollar boondogles like that new fighter, and for fighting wars under false pretences, fighting the war on drugs and prohibition, for suing people hairdressing without a license, etc etc etc
pretty much regardless of what your political perspective is, a very substantantial part of government spending is on things you don't agree with
(Score: 2, Disagree) by curunir_wolf on Monday April 25 2016, @07:56PM
Corporations don't pay taxes. At all. Even when they are making a profit. It's all passed on to the consumer, where all taxes ultimately come from.
Woz should know that, but apparently he always had so much money he never had to worry about it, so left all that up to the accountants. You know, the guys who decide what they can sell stuff for to make up for all the expenses, and where to collect all their revenue based on the tax treatment.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Monday April 25 2016, @08:48PM
Which is why I have the utterly crazy idea to just tax electronic transactions themselves. If you're a corporation it is a requirement that all of your transactions go through a bank with proper oversight. It's all centralized, so take advantage of that.
The people, who are suffering, don't have to a pay a tax if they exchange cash or barter on hand. If they wish to enjoy the convenience of electronic cash, safe crypto currency (which *might* even be anonymous), or debt based instruments then subject themselves to the tax. I'm betting if the government wanted they could administrate a bunch of different crypto currency chains for the public, while still being anonymous for the people. Operated by a civilian board with elected members possibly. Regardless, it is NOT illegal to conduct a transaction outside of the system if you're a citizen, and the value is less than X amount of dollars. At worst, you're sentenced to community service to around picking up trash or some other basic city need.
The corporations, who are posting record profits, have all the sophistication and resources to suffer the regulatory burdens. With the availability of outsourcing, and their long demonstrated prowess in managing foreign workers, such clerical and accounting needs can be had quite cheaply for them. Therefore, aAll transactions for corporations must be tracked and accountable to the IRS, at any time, in any place, in any data center, etc. As an aside, I think we need to start training the IRS on how to handle assault rifles and other needed armaments to deal with visiting corporations.
The government simply takes what it needs by "dipping its hand in the river", and we all set limits on just how deep they can shove their hands in. The deeper they fist us, the more commensurate increases in reach-around quality we demand in the form of social programs and free bling. For every X citizens served, we'll even give them an aircraft carrier or two, or some other toys they're screaming for today.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday April 26 2016, @06:10AM
Of course corporations pay taxes. They have to pay their workers enough to cover their workers taxes. That is why they have these memes going, they'd love if your taxes went down so they could pay you less.
Then there are all the companies that are already charging as much as the market will bear. If Apple raised their prices, would they move as much product? Same with Walmart, how much could they raise their prices before someone else would under sell them as having a few millions profit is good enough.
Of course Walmart represents the worst, a super rich company leeching off the taxpayers (by paying so little that employees need food stamps etc and telling their employees how to collect)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday April 25 2016, @07:24PM
Money never HAD to be "a thing" with Woz, because Apple was very successful right from the start.
.
When you look at the retained earnings and the cash position of Apple, they drain a great deal of money out of the economy compared to the actual benefit they provide. (Yes, they do this by convincing their hipster customers that they are cool, so millions of individual choices).
True, they keep their money in banks and investments which means its never really out of circulation (this actually ADDs to the money supply).
But they keep that cash out of the reach of taxation, which wouldn't happen if they paid larger dividends, paid their employees better, or lowered their prices. In all such cases individuals would hold that cash and pay taxes on it.
On the other hand, I could make the case that corporate earnings shouldn't be taxed at all. Those earnings should pass through to owners.
And the weak point of that argument is companies like Apple which hoard cash. Over 40 billion [yahoo.com] in liquid assets alone. Just held and never dispersed (and when it is spent, to buy some other company, they write that off as an investment - So no taxes again.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday April 25 2016, @08:38PM
But sure, $40 billion is a lot of money. It's like 10% of the F-35 program or a whole month of Iraqi war in 2006. It's seven long miles of Big Dig construction in Boston or 4% of an Apollo-style flags and footprints manned program to Mars. And it's slightly over 1% of all the stupid shit that the US spends money on every year. But what it isn't is a sum of money that would go far, if it got consumed as taxes in the US.
My view is that private economic activities which don't get converted into grossly inefficient government activities via taxation are a feature not a bug of the modern world. And I am all for that 0% tax rate on businesses.
(Score: 4, Informative) by melikamp on Tuesday April 26 2016, @12:47AM
Apple, which posts something like 15+ billion dollars of profit per quarter, if taxed at 50%, could carry the entire NASA budget, with a few billion left over. This is not nothing. This is a lot of cash, and right now it's being wasted on brainwashing, a.k.a. marketing outreach, a.k.a. consumer education, which includes lobbying and outright bribes all around the world.
Also, we are waiting for a coherent argument why corporations, which are by far the most successful and powerful commercial actors, shouldn't pay taxes from their profits, when you and I pay for the privilege of getting a paycheck. You seem to think that corporate spending is the paragon of efficiency, but in reality the US government is actually quite consistent about putting money into projects for public good, while corporations waste everything they make on fighting competition and unraveling the democracy (US petroleum producers are still subsidized, despite being in the most lucrative market in human history). They may be quite efficient at these tasks, but it sounds like you are clamoring for corporate leadership because they do a fantastic job robbing you at gunpoint, whereas the government would waste your money on relatively slow and inefficient infrastructure improvement.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 26 2016, @05:07AM
Apple, which posts something like 15+ billion dollars of profit per quarter, if taxed at 50%, could carry the entire NASA budget, with a few billion left over. This is not nothing. This is a lot of cash, and right now it's being wasted on brainwashing, a.k.a. marketing outreach, a.k.a. consumer education, which includes lobbying and outright bribes all around the world.
Beats what NASA would burn it on. Because at least, Apple is doing something very productive with that money.
Also, we are waiting for a coherent argument why corporations, which are by far the most successful and powerful commercial actors, shouldn't pay taxes from their profits, when you and I pay for the privilege of getting a paycheck.
Because they do vast more for society than either of us ever will.
but in reality the US government is actually quite consistent about putting money into projects for public good, while corporations waste everything they make on fighting competition and unraveling the democracy (US petroleum producers are still subsidized, despite being in the most lucrative market in human history).
Like spy on everyone on the planet? You need a better class of fairy tale.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 26 2016, @10:42PM
I agree 100% -- developing new science and pushing the frontiers of human exploration can't even BEGIN to compete with making a flashy TV spot!
Yup, my Google Phone and Windows 10 Telemetry Updates would NEVER spy on me!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:08AM
I agree 100% -- developing new science and pushing the frontiers of human exploration can't even BEGIN to compete with making a flashy TV spot!
So just how many tens of billions of dollars do you think Apple spends on flashy TV spots? NASA burns twenty billion a year for all that feelgood you're getting.
Yup, my Google Phone and Windows 10 Telemetry Updates would NEVER spy on me!
Notice how we went from Apple and NSA spying to completely different companies and minor league nosiness. But I'm sure it's all the same if you blind yourself enough.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Nuke on Monday April 25 2016, @07:41PM
Is he able to decide? I thought he was expressing his opinion, like you are.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @07:43PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday April 25 2016, @08:13PM
Quoting re-added:
So in essence you are not happy with him having his citizen rights?
So you think the First Amendment should be amended to read
?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @08:17PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Informative) by bob_super on Monday April 25 2016, @08:35PM
Tired of democracy, then... Plenty of dictatorships are available for you to pick your favorite.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @08:59PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday April 25 2016, @09:06PM
Please explain how you take away " the right to vote on what happens to other people's money" and still have a democracy.
Kindly provide realistic alternatives to prove that the dichotomy is false.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @09:20PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 25 2016, @09:47PM
I'm waiting for the answer to the "false dichotomy" part: what do you propose that's not dictatorship? Anarchy?
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @10:00PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 25 2016, @10:11PM
Then why would you care about the tax level? "Money" has no value in Anarchy.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:32AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @09:10PM
Split the difference: come to America and join the Woz.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday April 25 2016, @08:39PM
What makes you think that the money you owe as taxes is your money? Do you really think you would have gotten the same amount of money for your products, services or work if there would not be taxes to pay?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @09:00PM
^^ Jdavidb
You need to drop the "me vs. the world" attitude, which I'm sure is mostly just a small piece that crops up in political discussions. The I-got-mine mindset is really all about greed, and society would collapse if everyone actually tried to follow it. Every road would be a toll road, you'd better have a few hundred dollars cash if you want the police or fireman to even show up. Sick and don't have money? Die in the gutter plzthxbye. Even worse monopolies would crop up, with competition eliminated by force. Basically, the average person would VERY quickly become less free as we return to tribal warfare.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @09:00PM
What makes you think that the money you owe as taxes is your money?
There's a lot more reason to think that than there is to think the reverse. This question could easily be turned around.
Do you really think you would have gotten the same amount of money for your products, services or work if there would not be taxes to pay?
I think we would all be getting much more money if there were not taxes to pay.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @09:50PM
You wouldn't have a job numbskull.
You wouldn't have a free road to drive on that is kept reasonably safe my the police. You wouldn't have stop signals or street lights. You wouldn't have clean potable water pumped into your house and you certainly wouldn't be enjoying the cheap electricity you have right now. You would never make it to the office.
Taxes pay for all of that infrastructure. Without the shared cost to all of us, none of us could afford the individual costs related to police, roads, firemen, water testing, street lights, bridges, etc.
The only reason any of us can afford all of that is because we all pay towards it, even the stuff we don't necessarily individually need. Due to the facts that corporations draw high profits from utilizing these things for free it is only fair they pay for them along with everyone else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @06:57AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday April 25 2016, @10:30PM
There's a lot more reason to think that than there is to think the reverse. This question could easily be turned around.
No, it can't. It is not your money, it the Federal Reserve's money, they are just letting you hold on to it for a while. And your house is not your house, it is just letting you live in it for a while. And this earth is not your earth, if anything, you belong to the earth, not the other way around. No the question cannot be turned around. And not to put too fine a point on it, your life does not belong to you. It is only the restraint of your fellow citizens that lets you pretend to "own" anything. For all things belong to god, and if you don't pay your taxes, you may get to find this out first hand.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @10:44PM
No it's not. It's her majesties govenment's money. (you insensitive clod)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday April 25 2016, @11:08PM
"Render unto Elizabeth", I always say! Money belongs to whoever's face is on it! Now about that Canadian money often referred to as "The Loony" . . .
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 26 2016, @09:27AM
Then you are not thinking very far. To start with, let's assume everyone would have more dollars. What would happen? Well, with everyone having more dollars, everyone would have more dollars to spend, and therefore demand for products would go up. And then economics 101 kicks in: Higher demand leads to higher prices. And that means while you have more dollars, the dollars are worth less, and therefore you don't have more money.
But that's not all. The road on which you drive to work, do you pay for that? Well, you do, through taxes. If there were no taxes, either you'd have no road to drive on, or you would have to pay for the road directly. And then, who makes sure that you'll not get robbed on the way to work? Well, the police does. Paid by tax money. No taxes, no police. So plan to pay for your personal security, too. OK, but now the security company you hired happened to just take your money, but not actually help you when you are robbed; a fact that you of course only find out after you've been robbed. So what do you do? Sue them? Too bad that the courts are paid for by taxes. But maybe you've got the money to not just pay your lawyer, but also pay a private court (and at the same time manage to make sure the private court isn't getting enough bribes from the security company to rule against you — who would stop them from acting that way?). So that private court tells the security company that it has to pay you compensation. How do you get that compensation? Hire yet another contractor to enforce that? But that contractor has to be more powerful than the security firm, and at the same time more trustworthy. And probably will be even more expensive.
Well, in short, you'd pay much more than you currently pay in taxes, in order to maintain a more miserable life.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday April 26 2016, @08:13PM
You are absolutely right; I should have said I believe everyone would have more wealth, not money. Also, we wouldn't have imperialistic wars going on across the globe funded by the wealth that is being taken from us.
As for not having roads, I don't understand at all why that would be an issue. My take on that is the same as Larken Rose [goodreads.com]'s. To me the issues you raise sound like this discussion [facebook.com].
Hmm, looks like L. Rose has an even longer comment on this [youtube.com] that I haven't checked out yet. And I love this little ditty on the subject [youtube.com].
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @08:02AM
Maybe you should re-read my post. I had an either-or there. Your jumping on the "no roads" part (which I didn't say that way, so that comment you linked doesn't apply) and largely ignoring the rest looks like a classical red herring to me.
But as it seems clear to me that further discussion will not lead anywhere, this will be my last message in this thread.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:57AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @09:03PM
If this were his sincerely held religious belief, then it would be protecting *his* freedom to tax business at 50%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @07:33PM
Well, sir, while I find your position commendable and your steadfastness for it... a bit odd, I need you to go back and review the reason why men institute governments among themselves and why those governments have the authority to fund themselves through taxation.
Sorry. Taxation is not theft, at least given any workable definition of theft. Perhaps that's the problem here. Your definition of theft is unworkable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @07:35PM
Well, one other thing that might be the problem here. Hate to reply to myself. You've decided that we should all agree to this ideal that is completely impractical. You're one of those people who constantly whine because the ideal is unattainable in any practical sense. You're letting perfect be the enemy of good.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday April 26 2016, @08:05PM
You've decided that we should all agree to this ideal that is completely impractical.
That is what I see you doing, as well.
I need you to go back and review the reason why men institute governments among themselves and why those governments have the authority to fund themselves through taxation.
You need me to what? That is a weird way of speaking. I don't work for you or have any association with you, so what you might want to do is ask me to do something rather than simply telling me to do it.
In discussions like this I frequently bring up what the Declaration of Independence says, which I think addresses your concern, and is exactly the reason I believe the way I do: "all men ... are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
The phrase "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" rules out taxation as we know it. It is certainly fair to create an institution that serves to secure rights [youtube.com]. And it is certainly fair for those who consent to this institution to ask for dues from the members to cover expenses, just like any other institution. But what is not fair is to extract payment from those who do not consent. The institution doesn't gain rights that don't belong to those who created it, such as the right to take money from one's neighbor.
And I and many, many other people feel that the current form of government is absolutely destructive of the end (securing rights), and we want the right to alter or abolish and institute new government (new rights-protecting institutions) that seem most likely to us to effect our safety and happiness. We don't seek to take away your right to keep your existing government if you wish; we simply seek the right to not have powers exercised against us that we did not consent to. The present form of government is the biggest rights violator ever.
And no, the answer to that is not for us to be forced to abandon our property and possessions and go live somewhere else. There is no reason that we should not be allowed to create competing institutions so long as we and those institutions don't violate anyone else's rights to life, liberty, or property. Your institution, your government, is routinely violating people's rights to life, liberty, and property, both here and around the globe. I'd like to see that curtailed by everybody's right to not support it being respected.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @07:45PM
We live in a society where no one is free in the absolute sense. There are services that society provides for its members, and those services cost money. Its cute to see people arguing against taxing corporations and the rich, such delusions as to how society works.
But I do see your point, some people didn't ask to be taxed and want to live their own independent lives by the spoi... ahem, EARNINGS from their own hard work. This makes sense to any five year old, you worked for something so you should get to keep all of it. I vote we create a "free" state for such independent folks, and while we're at it we can emancipate any indebted poor by setting them "free" as well. It can be our new reality TV show, watch rich libertarians get hounded by thousands of poor people, will their ammo stocks last??
Or we can just realize that humanity is a group effort, and its in everyone's best interest to make sure everyone is looked out for. Not given lives of luxury, just the basics so that no one has to live in stress and anxiety about where they'll get their next meal, or whether an accident will send them into crippling debt for the rest of their lives.
I guess social security nets have little appeal for those who have amassed their own fortunes using the labor of others (or that dream of doing so), they've got theirs so who cares about some poor bastard in the ER who won't be able to support his kids. So instead of having people pay their fair share, you and the other commenters on this subthread would prefer to watch the world erupt in violent uprisings where they may be targeted by some disgruntled folks. Yes, smart move, good show, tipitty top, nice bootstraps.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @08:18PM
There are services that society provides for its members
You are conflating society with government. Right now we have one government and it is illegal to start another. It should be legal to start alternatives.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday April 25 2016, @08:19PM
I guess social security nets have little appeal for those who have amassed their own fortunes using the labor of others (or that dream of doing so), they've got theirs so who cares about some poor bastard in the ER who won't be able to support his kids.
ROTFL. I am the poor bastard who was in the ER with his baby just a few weeks ago, so I think you are pretty confused about where I am coming from.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @08:52PM
Did you go into crippling debt over your hospital visit? If not then that is not a good counter example. Either you have company health insurance (a fun capitalistic example of how useful social programs are, though insurance adds a profit surcharge that I'd rather not pay), or you are independently wealthy, or you benefited from one of societies safety nets.
If you truly are a hardworking low wage parent then you are deluded by the promises and propaganda of our "work to be a millionaire!" culture. Pretty much all the socialist first world countries have higher quality of life than the US, which country are you in? The whole concept of government is having a group of people organize and tell the majority what to do. The goal is to have government provide for the people while maximizing personal freedom, almost two separate goals which are a constant balancing act.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @08:28PM
There are free societys like that. Take a look at Africa. There's plenty of countries where the king or emperor or whatever is the top dog and eveybody is free to shoot anyone less powerful. So what i wonder is why all the "government rules suck ass" idiots just don't move to a free place where they are free to exploit people? It's because they can't. There'll be people much more powerful than them and they will get their asses kicked. Bunch of hypocritical mofos.
(Score: 3, Funny) by shortscreen on Tuesday April 26 2016, @08:23AM
I already looked into it. I don't want to live near the equator though, too hot. I was thinking of some place sparsely populated and cooler, like Kamchatka. Turns out there aren't any good ISPs there. So before I go, I just have to finish downloading all the porn on the internet. I'll be ready any day now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @02:16PM
I love how absolutist AC's can be. Almost no one who complains about taxes feels they are entirely unnecessary. Most of us complain about the magnitude of waste on corruption which are associated with it. And the resulting increase in taxes due to said corruption and waste, because the things we need still have to be covered even if the money is being squandered in huge amounts.
Of course useless AC's such as yourself will turn around and hawk "Well you voted for the government so it's your fault" which is utter nonsense. The system is so corrupt that only corporations have any effect on how the government is run, and that leads to the original reason for the article posted here.
Fuck yes I would love to pay for roads, bridges, schools, fire/police departments, and health care, none of which would cost 50% of my salary combined. Fuck no I don't want to pay for lifetime health benefits for political cronies, political appointments, fixed no-bid contracts that run 5x over budget and deliver substandard work, or shit like 2500 pie-in-the-sky planes that will cost absurd amount of money and still fail at their primary mission of bombing brow-to-black people in some 3rd world shit-hole I want nothing to do with in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2016, @07:35PM
Your corporations and their lobbyists are too powerful. You do not have a properly functioning democracy. Tax the corporations more, subject them to regulation and oversight. Reduce their power. Return power to the hands of the individual. Make the corporations and the government work for the people.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday April 25 2016, @08:13PM
It's true that Woz has always been fairly generous with his dough. This isn't surprising, since he's always at heart been a guy who wanted to tinker with electronics and make people around him happy. Also, he might have learned something from the following story (possibly not quite true, but certainly plausible):
What's certainly true is that once you reach a certain level of personal wealth (somewhere around $5-10 million), there's really no practical advantage whatsoever in trying to become even more wealthy, because you're already at the point where you have more than enough coming in from your investments to buy pretty much whatever you want while not doing any work. There'd be a good argument for, if you've reached, say, $50 million in current dollars, for society as a whole to say basically "Congratulations, you've beaten the game of capitalism! Good for you, but that's the most you're ever going to get. Anything above that, and you'll have to give it away or we'll tax it away." Because at that point, you're already getting something like $3 million a year to play with, more than enough to live in a nice mansion (or two or five), travel where you like, send your kids to whatever school they can get into, eat what you like, and so forth.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @10:41PM
Commie bastard, naiive socialist, something something job creation. Mumble mumble lawn mumble shotgun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2016, @11:12PM
What if you wanted to personally fund a trip to the moon or create an under sea city? Might cost more than $50 million. Don't get me wrong, the tax playing field should be leveled, but we shouldn't add random caps. No one should ever need more than 1mb in bandwidth...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 26 2016, @12:49AM
Indeed it would. And that doesn't bother me in the slightest, because a trip to the moon or an undersea city under those circumstances would leave somebody in charge (namely, the rich person funding it) that would likely have exactly zero qualifications for the job. As an example, Paul Allen knows a great deal about making computer software but very little about submarines, and putting him in a position where he could overrule people who do in fact know something about submarines when the question is about submarines is not a good idea. And that's not because Paul Allen is a bad guy or isn't smart, it's because he's out of his field of skill.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 26 2016, @02:33PM
Yeah, that's right on the money, Thexalon. There's been some talk these days about instituting a basic income, but I believe it would be much more efficacious to implement a maximum wealth. $50 million is a good cut-off. Index that for inflation, and you've taken away all financial incentive for the 1% to infinitely fuck over the 99% and destroy civilization and the world.
Couple that with public floggings for those who reach that $50 million and use it to be cruel or do evil, and we just might beat this thing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 25 2016, @09:15PM
If corporations would pay their fair share, then "other people" wouldn't have to pay nearly as much as they do.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.